At the session of the Senate of the University of Novi Sad, held on Thursday, November 20, it was voted that Rector Dejan Madić remains in that position, despite the fact that all teaching-scientific and scientific councils of the faculty and Institute voted for his dismissal, while at the same time Jelena Kleut was not elected to the position of full professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, despite the fact that she meets all the requirements and that the Expert Council for Humanities previously made a positive decision on her selection. The objection that arrived after the scheduled deadline, so it should not have been accepted, concerns her monograph - well, it was not approved, that is, verified by the Ministry, although this is actually a condition for selection for employees in scientific institutes.
Jelena Kleut is a researcher in the field of media studies, a person extremely dedicated to her students, appreciated across regional borders and, finally, an important voice in support of student demands from the very beginning of the protest. By all accounts, this is where this extremely naked revanchism comes from.
She is still waiting for the decision that she was not selected as a regular professor - her employment contract expires at the end of the week, but it is most likely that the Faculty will extend her employment by annex until the procedure is completed.
Among other things, we discuss the blockades and whether they should have been continued, what it's like to live in parallel realities, what the students say to her and what her next steps will be, but also what should be done in the media sphere after the fall of this government so that this kind of situation in the media does not happen again.
"WEATHER" You recently stated that we live in parallel realities. Life goes on as usual, and nothing is normal. There is a paramilitary camp in the city center, people regularly get fired for being against the government, repression of the masses. How do you see the merging of those two realities into one when it comes to the university?
JELENA KLEUT: One night, students stand in front of Milomir Jaćimović's bus, and there the police break their noses. The next morning we go to the university and hold classes, as if everything is fine, as if it's a completely normal beginning of the semester, as if it's October. It's devastating to me, and on a personal level it's almost impossible for me to reconcile those two realities.
These days, the trial of the "Novosad Group" began, in a completely surreal procedure. We are forced to live in this division - on the one hand there is a rebellion, and on the other we return to everyday life, to our professional and private obligations. But I believe that we should not have agreed to that return, it is a fraud. This was the desire of the regime from the beginning - to restore the semblance of normal life. And they are the biggest profiteers of it. Their voters sit in cafes, sip coffee, send their children to school, as if there are no other processes in society.
The journalistic profession is under a special attack of this pressure - we are expected to do our job and uphold professional standards as if everything is fine. As if we are not exposed to physical and verbal attacks every day, and systematically prevented from doing what is our job...
That's part of the con, when you return to your normal professional or family role, you naturally expect some rules to apply. But you can't integrate that other reality where the rules practically don't exist. This regime can fire as it pleases, beat, use illegal sound cannons... And you say to yourself: we cannot function without a system, there are norms we must respect, for example, we will not cut class to go to a protest. In your job as a journalist, this is the dilemma: stick to ethical standards, codes, defense of the public interest, you don't want to be a party to a conflict. But the regime turns you in that direction, whether you want it or not, because they attack journalists, organize campaigns, target you.
You say that we should not have agreed to the appearance of normality. And what was needed??
From the point of view of us who are part of the university, I don't think we should have agreed to the pressures of the state, which were extremely strong, with the withholding of salaries, inspections, criminal charges against the dean - a huge machinery was launched against higher education - but we had to continue to support students and remain in the blockade. That position said: "We do not agree to that normality while you release people who break the jaws of our students".
Did you personally expect this kind of revenge?
I expected certain problems, but not in this way. Rather, I thought they would resort to some of the other measures that produce the same uncertainty, but are not as obvious, not as blatant a violation of procedures. And there is also that expectation - you did the best you could, in accordance with the rules and previous practice. You believe it protects you, but it doesn't. I know that even today there are colleagues who think: "She asked for it herself, why did she have to say so much; as long as I'm here, tucked away and not making a lot of noise, something like that can't happen to me."
It is also important to say this: my case is not the first. You have a number of colleagues, say at the State University in Novi Pazar, who were dismissed by being simply told: "We don't need you anymore." Those people lost their jobs much more quietly, much more "efficiently" and with significantly fewer legal mechanisms to rebel than I have. A colleague from the Faculty of Technical Sciences also lost her job. The Department of Media Studies, the Faculty, stands behind me... Here they resorted to a drastic measure precisely because it forced Patrik Drid and Dejan Madić out into the open.
And why do you think they resorted to that measure? Why such a blatant example?, What does that achieve??
Their goal is certainly revenge, to begin with. Then they want to show that they can. And then let it be a message for all others who raise their voices on different sides. The response of the academic community will depend on the extent to which we will agree to it, whether and how much strength we will have to say: "This is not the case of just one female professor, it is about a principle."
Did you even get that decision that prevents you from being elected to the position of full professor? And what is your next step??
I'm not, I'm waiting for that decision, it still hasn't arrived. They usually know how to travel for a long time, for days, even though the Rectorate and the Faculty of Philosophy are across the street from each other. The situation is delicate now, because my contract expires at the end of the week, so it would be good if he arrives as soon as possible. In relation to what is written there, it will be seen to what extent procedures were violated and the legality of decision-making at the meeting was violated. Only when we see how the explanation is worded - I would especially like to read the minutes from the session - then it will be clearer what exactly happened. But it is quite certain that I will appeal that decision.
Where did you get the information about the objections??
My Faculty referred me to a complaint that was filed outside the procedure and outside the prescribed deadline, which is based on the document that later appeared in the tabloids. Actually, I learned most from the tabloids. That objection was signed by four students of the Faculty of Philosophy from the Student Parliament, and it had to be submitted within the stipulated period, but it was not. My commission submitted a report, the electoral council of the Faculty of Philosophy, and then the expert body of the Senate, gave a positive opinion on that report. And then that complaint only reached the Senate.
Regarding your profession, two members of the Senate voted against, it is known which ones, six for, and as many as 12 abstained. What are so many neutral voices telling you??
It was similar with the election of the rector. The people sitting in the dean's positions are clearly not up to the job. They would have to know those documents better than anyone else and would have to have integrity in their decisions. And, unfortunately, in the case of the dismissal of the rector and in this case, we saw what it actually means to be restrained. In such circumstances - have no opinion. Refrain from opinions! I find it scandalous.
I must admit that I am even more defeated by the number of those who abstained than Drid and Madić themselves, who voted to overturn my election.
What do students tell you??
These days there is a barrage of emails and messages. And I was very moved by those messages. First, that all those students, current and former, need to come forward. Second, a part of them is very upset and worried about what will happen, they ask what they can do...
Which again has to do with parallel realities... What do you think?, what to do next, that is, how to get out of this political situation, and social problems-the position in which we found ourselves?
It seems to me that we are still on a seesaw. Layoffs in education, problems in universities, actually everything serves the regime to say: "We are holding the strings in our hands." Any measure that shows that this is not true is good, whether it is protests, solidarity actions, local elections, REM elections... The regime tries to control all these processes, and the longer and more strongly the citizens challenge them, the more problems the regime has. I am sure of one thing - something broke in people. The way they connected and resisted cannot go back to the way it was a year ago. Maybe, actually, it's just a question of how to preserve it until the elections and how to organize as best as possible for them.
You mentioned many who were quietly dismissed in education, there were some in high schools, high schools and universities. Do you think she is sociable?, and the media reaction to it was adequate, or more could have been done?
When the layoffs began - four high school teachers lost their jobs and not only because their contracts were not extended but their employment was terminated - protests were organized in those communities, the media reported, and those people spoke at rallies. But I'm afraid that now so much has accumulated that it stops being news, and actually the media can't help much because there are so many cases that people don't have enough attention. A lot is burning. Only these days we have attacks on journalists N1, lex specialis...
On the other hand, there are different networks of solidarity, which are not so visible but are functioning. None of those who are under the attack of the regime said: "Now I am really left in the lurch and forgotten by everyone."
One question from your scientific expertise - what is the most important thing to do in the media sector in the day after, that this situation never happens again?
The first step is to cut all financial ties between the state and the media until their expediency in achieving the public interest is re-examined. A large part of the paramedia, especially at the local level, will be left completely out in the open as they live solely on clientelistic connections. Cutting those channels of funding, which they didn't deserve, will be enough to clean up that market. Another important thing is that, whoever comes to power next, does not take a paternalistic attitude towards the media. I believe that even the democratic authorities did not want a real reform of the media system and that it has now fallen on our heads. Whoever sits in the chair of the Minister of Information, in the Parliament or elects the new composition of the REM, no matter how "our" it is, the professional community must resist the influence of politics in the media. Politics lives off the media and therefore does not want to let them be independent.
Changing clothes of "Pink" must not be allowed. Because "Pink" is important to politicians because it reaches voters they could not reach before... We must not support that logic! The new competition for the national frequency must be based on the quality of the program, on interests, and not on political interests.
Finally, the difficult question of whether we need lustration in the media will be opened. It will be painful for the entire media community, but I think it is necessary to a certain extent, not because some media are propaganda outlets - they exist everywhere in the world - but because of the violation of human rights. That is the minimum, the red line: the publication of material like the case of Nikolina Sinđelić must not be repeated.
Finally, that you can turn back time, Is there anything you would have done differently in the last year??
Two colleagues told me something that had never occurred to me. Namely, some students told them that they feel guilty because of what is happening to me. Whatever happens with my contract, it's not the students' fault! Let's expand on that idea. I would do it all over again.
